Hey everybody, although the forum has indeed fallen into a bit of a slumber lately, I don’t consider it dead yet, so here goes:I have been wondering for a few weeks about the different complement particles we have in in Hokkien and their respective functions and still find I am unsure about the differences between some of them.To be more particular, I am talking about the particles which follow after a verb and link it to a complement (the role that in Mandarin is fulfilled by 得). Of course Hokkien, unlike Mandarin, possesses several of these which as far as I can see fulfill quite different functions, some of which I think I have grasped, while others are still somewhat unclear to me. So I would like to ask everybody’s opinion on this.

The ones that I can think of right now are:1. “kah/kà” (MoE 甲): originially the same as “kàu” (到), and indeed sometimes still pronounced as “kàu”, this particle is used to express the extent of the verb. Bsp.:

kiann kah beh sí (驚甲欲死) 'to be frightened so much (to the extent) that one almost dies'

2. “liáu” 了: The one I’m having the most trouble understanding. It often seems very close to the following “tio̍h” (著) in function (i.e. introducing a feeling induced by the action) but not always. I guess it’s probably closely related to the verbal suffix “liáu” ‘finished’, mostly for phonological reasons: Unlike “kah” or “tio̍h”, “liáu” is pronounced in standing tone, so a consruction like “x了y” might originally have meant something along the lines of “after (finishing) action x, action y occurred”. And sure enough, y often seems to be a result of x, but not always. Also, “tio̍h” and “hōo” express some sort of result as well, so is different about “liáu” then? Amhoanna once (here http://www.chineselanguage.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11484&p=86247&hilit=complement#p86247) described liáu to me as indicating performance (meaning I guess the way in which the action is performed?), which of course is completely different from the “after x, y occurs” interpretation but a lot of sentences fit this explanation very well, too (especially those which the “after” interpretation cannot explain). In any case, I usually have no trouble understanding what the sentence says, but I don’t feel comfortable using this particle because I don’t quite understand how. Some example sentences I have found:

Hit king tshù khí liáu tsin suí. (彼間厝起了真媠。) 'They built this building to be very beautiful.'

3. “tio̍h” (著): Obviously related to the verb suffix which indicates a successful action. Maybe this construction originally meant “when x-ing, y occurs”. I couldn’t find a secondary source to confirm this, but according to my understanding, “tio̍h” indicates the a feeling that the verb induces, somewhat similar to 起來 in Mandarin (這件衣服穿起來很舒服 ect), although “tio̍h” can apparently also express a feeling of the speaker, not only the subject. Bsp.:

Lí tsit siú kua tshiùnn tio̍h tsiok hó-thiann--ê. (你這首歌唱著足好聽的。 'You sang this song very beautifully.' (I guess that in this case “liáu” could also be used, maybe even preferable?)

4. “hōo” (予): It might be disputable whether this one is already a particle or still a causative suffix. I would argue that in those cases where it occurs in standing tone (or as an alternative interpretation, as “hoo” and in running tone, i.e. when it is a contraction of “hōo-i” (予伊)), it is at least on the best way of becoming a particle. Either way, its function is rather straightforward: it expresses a state that the object assumes as a result of the verb action. Bsp.:

sé hōo tshing-khì (洗予(伊)清氣) 'to wash until it is clean'

kóng hōo tshing-tshó (講予(伊)清楚) 'to make clear, to tell in all clarity'

I guess they may function somewhat differently in other regions (afaik “liáu” in particular seems to be much more in use as a perfective particle in Malaysia, I suspect that might affect its use as a particle which introduces complements?) Happy to hear your opinions.

Best wishes from Taipei,Abun

EDIT: Just asked my teacher again, according to her feeling I got the meaning of "tio̍h" about right, it is indeed used to indicate a feeling invoked by the action. However, apparently the definition of "feeling" here is broader than I thought, so I would rather use the word "impression" now. E.g. "I sé-sann sé tio̍h tsin kín." (伊洗衫洗著真緊。) 'S/he does his/her laundry very quickly." In this sentence, tio̍h introduces the manner in which the action is performed, but it is a subjective impression, not an objective description. Also, the use of this particle seems to imply habitual action. S/he always does the laundry quickly, not just right now.On "liáu" she said that it introduces a manner or result of the action. It apparently tends to imply more objectivity and, most importantly, is used for single actions. E.g. "I kin-á-ji̍t sé sann sé liáu pí phóo-thong-sî khah kín." (伊今仔日洗衫洗了比普通時較緊。) 'S/he did the laundry more quickly than usually today.'

I have not given this much thought just now, but I was able to discuss this topic with some linguistically-aware native speakers the other day. What I remember learning was that the tonal workings on the V-tio̍h ADV structure are not what You would expect. It's actually liàntiāu（～「変」調） on the verb, and khiātiāu（～「本」調） on «tio̍h». Weird, huh. Apparently, this is the rule all over TW.

Your descriptions seem to be spot on.

I'd use «chiòⁿ liáu» over «chiòⁿ tio̍h».

I've never really mastered the «tio̍h». I only use it when nothing else seems to fit. I need to work on it.

Something that suddenly came to mind is whether ergativity's got anything to do with it. Is «tio̍h» kind of like this ergative «liáu»?

One thing that's on my mind also is the «zero complement». I think sometimes just the bare verb is enough. Exactly when this is true, I've yet to figure out. I think I've been over-using the zero complement. It has something to do with non-native speaker hearing. You think the native speaker used no complement, but actually it was there in a clipped form.

I have a bit much on my mind right now, but I think it's great that we're talking grammar. This is much needed in the Hoklosphere, in the face of an unspoken belief that grammar -- at least for "Chinese" languages -- is a non-factor.

One more thing. Have You bought a copy of the TÂIGÍ PE̍H'ŌE SIÓ SÛTIÁN? If not, You owe it to yourself -- assuming You can read Mandarin, though. It's a Hoklo-Mandarin dictionary. They carry it at Tâi'oân ê tiàm right by the Univ. of Taiwan.

thanks for your comments! I was already starting to think that maybe I'm the only one left who checks the forum more than maybe once every few months xD

amhoanna wrote:I have not given this much thought just now, but I was able to discuss this topic with some linguistically-aware native speakers the other day. What I remember learning was that the tonal workings on the V-tio̍h ADV structure are not what You would expect. It's actually liàntiāu（～「変」調） on the verb, and khiātiāu（～「本」調） on «tio̍h». Weird, huh. Apparently, this is the rule all over TW.

That's odd. I'm positive that postverbal tio̍h is enclitic to the verb for me in all positions. So if the word group is in a position where a pure verb would take standing tone, the verb remains in standing tone and tio̍h is in light tone (the "falling" one, not the one which follows the preceding syllable in pitch). If on the other hand anything follows the verb which requires it to be in running tone, tio̍h is in running tone as well. For example:你敢捌看著大象？ I would pronounce as: Lí kám bat khuànn-tio̍h tuā-tshiūnn? (with only the very last syllable in standing tone, the others in running tone). But:無，我毋捌看著。 would be: Bô, guá m̄-bat khuànn--tio̍h. (with standing tone on bô and khuànn, and tio̍h in light tone).

I have never heard tio̍h in standing tone in this position. Of course, most people I speak with have recieved education in Taiwanese, so the way of speaking they think SHOULD be correct may have changed the way they actually speak. But what I hear is also supported by what is presented in the Maryknoll books and although their interpretations about the deep-level structure is questionable at times (light tone being equated to third tone ect.), they usually do a good job at capturing the phonetic reality as far as I can see...

amhoanna wrote:Something that suddenly came to mind is whether ergativity's got anything to do with it. Is «tio̍h» kind of like this ergative «liáu»?

I don't quite understand what you mean by "ergative" liáu (meaning I do know what "ergativity" usually means, I just don't understand how it relates to this topic ). Could you elaborate?

amhoanna wrote:One thing that's on my mind also is the «zero complement». I think sometimes just the bare verb is enough. Exactly when this is true, I've yet to figure out. I think I've been over-using the zero complement. It has something to do with non-native speaker hearing. You think the native speaker used no complement, but actually it was there in a clipped form.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "zero complement", either^^' Do you mean sentences like "Ua~, kin-á-ji̍t si̍t-tsāi jua̍h kah...!" with the actual complement elided (presumably to express the speaker can't think of a word which would be strong enough to express the extent of jua̍h)?

amhoanna wrote:Have You bought a copy of the TÂIGÍ PE̍H'ŌE SIÓ SÛTIÁN?

Not yet, but I'll be sure to go around and have a look when I'm around Tâi-tāi next time!

As luck would have it, the V-tio̍h ADV structure came up in today's tha̍kchhehhōe, in this sentence:

«Lô-á tī pêⁿ-lō͘ ê sî, chài tio̍h hó-sè hó-sè.»

First, as to tone, what I wrote in my last post was correct. Running tone on CHÀI, standing tone on TIO̍H. The sensei remarked that while TIO̍H takes standing tone, it is not as clearly stressed as it usually is when standing.

Your description of the tonal action is correct for V-tio̍h structures, but V-tio̍h ADV structures work differently.

I guess the easiest way to remember this is to compare it to V-liáu ADV structures. The run-stand pattern is identical -- and counter-intuitive in both cases, I'd say.

I asked whether TIO̍H could be replaced with LIÁU in the sentence in the reading. The sensei said yes, but that the meanings or emphases are not identical. LIÁU looks at the action as something that's finished. TIO̍H looks at it as something that's ongoing. I think this might be what linguists call "aspect".

The sensei lamented that this TIO̍H is quite absent from the speech of many younger people. In many cases, younger people use --KHÍLÂI instead. In those cases, the corresponding structure in Mandarin uses «qǐlái».

I'd add that younger people tend to over-use KÀ / KAH. This is b/c they tend to map Mandarin «de» (得) to KÀ / KAH.

It can be quite tough to point out this kind of slippage to someone who talks this way. They may have a hard time imagining how else it could be, even if they have old folks at home who talk the "right" way. It may take a while for them to even know what You're really even talking about.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "ergative" liáu (meaning I do know what "ergativity" usually means, I just don't understand how it relates to this topic ). Could you elaborate?

今旦上課請教先生了後と知影我个「設論」無影。亦茲と先免講あ。

I don't quite understand what you mean by "zero complement", either^^

I may've mis-used the terminology. I don't know. What I mean is structures like:

I wonder whether my memory was influenced by the accent of my teachers at Maryknoll. Although they're not native Taipeinese, they all show the lowering of 8th tone to mid level which I have been told is typical for Taipei accent (i.e. they merge 8th tone into 4th tone in standing position, sometimes even 7th when final glottal stop is elided. In running position it's still differentiated).

amhoanna wrote:I guess the easiest way to remember this is to compare it to V-liáu ADV structures. The run-stand pattern is identical -- and counter-intuitive in both cases, I'd say.

Aren't the two different in standing position? V著 with nothing following has the verb in standing and 著 in light tone but V了 with nothing behind it has running on the verb, standing on 了, doesn't it?

amhoanna wrote:I asked whether TIO̍H could be replaced with LIÁU in the sentence in the reading. The sensei said yes, but that the meanings or emphases are not identical. LIÁU looks at the action as something that's finished. TIO̍H looks at it as something that's ongoing. I think this might be what linguists call "aspect".

That's indeed what I would call aspect. I guess this is also what the Maryknoll authors meant with "形容片語（很快）告知我們那講者對那動作之想法，然而那形容片語並無講及行動之結果。"However there seem to be some examples where it's not a completed action, e.g. the "bē liáu bô siánn hó" I quoted earlier. Although I can't find the sentence again (it was from a Maryknoll book as well) but my own theory at that point was that liáu marked a result and this sentence struck me as a counterexample. So although I don't remember the complete sentence, the context must have made it clear that the verb action was not completed here (i.e. not "didn't sell very well [today/last week ect.]") but rather a general statement: "doesn't sell well". Unless something led me to misinterprete the sentence as a general statement (which is of course entirely possible ).

amhoanna wrote:

I don't quite understand what you mean by "zero complement", either^^

I may've mis-used the terminology. I don't know. What I mean is structures like:

Why not put a LIÁU where 〇s are, esp. the second one? I just don't think it's done. 総 ·是茲我と卡無把握ら、講真兮。有㖦時仔是母語人士月下一个「liáu」、あ我はん慢听、听無着。

To my ear liáu would sound odd in your first sentence. I have a feeling that liáu cannot be used in imperative clauses, which would make sense if liáu implies perfective aspect because actions in imperative by nature are unfinished.

I know what You're talking about, but You have not caught the wavelength of what I was trying to say. Let me explain.

First, You've got to realize that it's all different V-tio̍h structures out there, with different tonal structures. You keep going back to the basic one, the one that we see in:

I ah-bōe khòaⁿ--tio̍h.

Or

I ah-bōe khòaⁿ-tio̍h he lâng.

Now we talking about something else, like in a sentence like this:

Chia̍h-tio̍h suiⁿ-suiⁿ.

The tone build of the sentence above this one is liàn-khiā-liàn-khiā.

So although I don't remember the complete sentence, the context must have made it clear that the verb action was not completed here (i.e. not "didn't sell very well [today/last week ect.]") but rather a general statement: "doesn't sell well".

Again, You's tryna fit Hoklo into ideas You have, which may be from German or Mandarin. Hoklo works its own way. Yesterday, I said nothing about actions being completed. The criterion is different from what You's looking at.

Overall I think your Hoklo is coming on strong. A lot of people talk about learning Hoklo, but You's actually doing it. Since I doubt anybody would be affected at this point in the unique life cycle of this forum, may I propose that we switch to writing in Hoklo by default -- each on his own personal, individual basis to further adjust as desired by his own self?

amhoanna wrote:First, You've got to realize that it's all different V-tio̍h structures out there, with different tonal structures. You keep going back to the basic one, the one that we see in:

I ah-bōe khòaⁿ--tio̍h.

Or

I ah-bōe khòaⁿ-tio̍h he lâng.

Now we talking about something else, like in a sentence like this:

Chia̍h-tio̍h suiⁿ-suiⁿ.

The tone build of the sentence above this one is liàn-khiā-liàn-khiā.

I seem to have misunderstood your statement about tio̍h and liáu showing identical run-stand patterns. I thought you meant that their behaviour in both standing and running position respectively is the same, but I guess you meant the pattern of verb in running and particle in standing tone.

amhoanna wrote:Again, You's tryna fit Hoklo into ideas You have, which may be from German or Mandarin. Hoklo works its own way. Yesterday, I said nothing about actions being completed. The criterion is different from what You's looking at.

Didn't you talk about liáu looking at the action as finished? That also neatly coincides with the fact that the verb/adverb liáu (as in "pn̄g tsia̍h-liáu--ah") also indicates a finished action. As far as I see it, that's a strong indication that the two are connected, especially seeing as the tone pattern on the V了-complement construction seems to indicate two originally disconnected phrases: V了+rest (although a strong indication is of course no proof).The "bē-liáu bô siánn hó" example on the other hand - as far as I remember - did not seem to "look at the action as finished" in that sentence, but simply to describe the manner in which the action proceeds over an extended, still ongoing period of time. In terms of aspect, that would not be perfective but rather continuous or maybe habitual, depending on whether the selling is percieved as a constant action or one which is performed regularly.As far as I can see it, my reasoning was built solely on Hokkien evidence as well as the definition of a prototypical "perfective aspect", so I don't quite see where you percieve corruption from Mandarin and German mindset (German btw doesn't have aspect, unless you count the existance of present perfect tense, which in German is identical in meaning to the simple past in almost all cases, so its aspectual implication has all but disappeared). Of course, the aspect we have in Hokkien liáu may not be a prototypical perfective. Or the implication of aspect is not true in all dialects/sociolects. Or we could be looking at language change in progress and the aspectual meaning is showing first signs of disappearing. Or my interpretation of the sentence was simply wrong. There are many possibilities. I was merely noting an example which, at least at first glance, seems not to fit the theory so neatly.

amhoanna wrote:Overall I think your Hoklo is coming on strong. A lot of people talk about learning Hoklo, but You's actually doing it. Since I doubt anybody would be affected at this point in the unique life cycle of this forum, may I propose that we switch to writing in Hoklo by default -- each on his own personal, individual basis to further adjust as desired by his own self?

Looking at it as finished is one thing. Whether it's actually finished is another.

Let's say two friends are taking in a public speech in the park. One friend turns to the other half way through and says, «Hòⁿ, kóng liáu ū kàu cán--ê.» The speech ain't through, but the speaker is looking at a portion of the speech that's in the past, and passing a judgment on it.

My analysis only. Must await confirmation from that rarest of breeds, the native speaker.

This'd be a great question to bring up in the fora on Bīncúcheh.

The "bē-liáu bô siánn hó" example on the other hand - as far as I remember - did not seem to "look at the action as finished" in that sentence, but simply to describe the manner in which the action proceeds over an extended, still ongoing period of time. In terms of aspect, that would not be perfective but rather continuous or maybe habitual, depending on whether the selling is percieved as a constant action or one which is performed regularly.

Doesn't sound quite right to me (your test-planation), but I'm not sure. Will have to put up one of these:

Note that 張裕宏 defines this liáu as --

1, 表示結果的品質.

And a related definition:

2, 表示因果.

«Bē-liáu bô siánn hó» is off of definition 1. The quality of the selling was not so good. Whether or not the selling is still ongoing or habitual or not does not seem to be implied in the utterance. In another language, we might expect that info to be encoded. In Hoklo, though, it's fine to say nothing about whether it's ongoing, etc.

As far as I can see it, my reasoning was built solely on Hokkien evidence as well as the definition of a prototypical "perfective aspect", so I don't quite see where you percieve corruption from Mandarin and German mindset

Just a guess. Our minds naturally see new languages in terms of known ones. It's tough for an African or a European -- but not a Hakka or Vietnamese speaker -- to be learning both Mandarin and Hoklo. The tendency is to be more advanced in one (usually Mandarin) and to over-apply the structures and features of that tongue to the other.

你的主義誠袂䆀

Here's two. «Cúgī» doesn't mean IDEA in Hoklo. (And actually, isn't the Mandarin word written 主意?) Also, «bēbái» has not lexicalized to the point where You can use the full array of modifiers with it. I hesitate to say it's wrong. «Kài bēbái» sounds 100% wrong. «Ciâⁿ bēbái» sounds wrong to me but I'm not sure. «Ciok bēbái» sounds a bit more reasonable and «cin bēbái» sounds more or less grammatical, maybe from having heard some young people say it. Wonder where they got it!

If You're in contact with a lot of «Mandarin-dominant Hoklo speakers» (read: city people, young people, educated people), and You yourself come from a bkgrd of having studied Mandarin intensively before Hoklo, that's kind of a perfect storm. On some level You'd expect (at least inconclusively) «bēbái» to act like Mand «不錯». When You hear a Mandarin-dominant speaker use it in the same way as 不錯, that reinforces your expectation. It may take a long time for You to come back around to realize that the usage was poorly formed from a Hoklo-centric POV.

And, more for the benefit of anyone who might be reading this... I really don't see the good in writing 你的 instead of 汝个... 你 and 的 are both 訓用s of another modern vernacular (Mandarin), when 訓用s are "supposed" to be based on 漢文 elements. Double-plus-ungood, in my book. But not incorrect, b/c the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China endorsed it. (Hmm...) And everybody's doing it.

There's always the philosophical question of whether Hoklo-spoken-a-là-Mandarin isn't just as valid as Hoklo spoken by Hoklo-dominant speakers. My conclusion on that is ... no. It wouldn't even be a question if the younger generation wasn't so Mandarin-heavy. At some point the question may have to be re-assessed, but not -- as I see it -- in 2015. At this point, some 20-some-year-olds in Southern Taiwan and maybe the North Shore are still marginally Hoklo-dominant. The "real Hoklo" is alive, though not well. My naïve hope is for it to make a comeback. We could even be a part of it.